A Chronological Account of Disruptions to the Academy

Within the context of higher education, crises may be conceptualized as sudden or unexpected events that disrupt typical operations, impede fulfillment of educational missions, or threaten the well-being of the institution’s faculty, staff, students, property, finances, or reputation (Zdziarski, 2006). Rollo and Zdziarski (2007) highlights numerous crisis situations faced by institutions of higher education and their surrounding communities over a 50-year period, including one of the first nationally-covered mass shootings at the University of Texas at Austin (1966); demonstrations against the Vietnam War draft and violent conflict with the National Guard at Kent State University (1970); a major health crisis at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign and Parkland College (1991–1992); a 6.7 magnitude earthquake that caused significant destruction at California State University, Northridge (1994); the attack upon the World Trade Center (2001); and devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina (2005) on the city of New Orleans and its surrounding colleges and universities. Holzweiss et al. (2020) examined the crisis response for online students at an institution impacted by Hurricane Harvey, which hit Houston, Texas, in 2017, and recommended that universities develop proactive crisis plans that consider supports that can be offered not only to students but also to frontline staff who are called to action following the onset of disruption. The recent COVID-19 pandemic brought about concerns of the physical health and safety of workers as well as raised questions over their psychological well-being. Tušl et al. (2021) found approximately 30% of surveyed employees reported their work and private life worsened. Lai et al. (2022) found an association between career stress resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and the intention to leave one’s job.

Indeed, preparing for and mitigating the impact of major disruptive events may be one of the most commonly neglected parts of the crisis management process within higher education (Zdziarski, 2006). To prepare for disasters or disruptions, Robinson (2005) suggested organizations develop contingency management teams in which individuals hold specified roles to develop disaster/disruption plans. Educational development teams might consider creating their own plans based upon and in conjunction with those disseminated by institutional administrators. Furthermore, during times of disruption, research suggests that effective teams work to promote high levels of cooperation, trust, role understanding, and effective communication while minimizing competition and conflict (Power, 2018). Organizational and team leadership can be influential in addressing the negative impacts of disruptions, and employee perceptions of organizational support may reduce the association between stress and the intention to leave one’s job (Lai et al., 2022). Simply allowing space for team members to talk about the impacts of crises and disruptions may be associated with higher levels of workplace harmony (Gelfand et al., 2006; Qin et al., 2021). Unfortunately, lessons learned from previous crises often do not result in the creation of new policies or shift existing protocols to prevent or mitigate the impacts of future disruptions (Pollock, 2013). It is therefore critical to examine the impact of disruptive events so academic institutions are better prepared should similar situations occur in the future.

Navigating Teamwork Within the Academy

Teamwork may be conceptualized as a collective of “people working together to achieve something beyond the capabilities of individuals working alone” (Marks et al., 2001, p. 356). Indeed, the success of a team cannot be attributed solely to the talents of its individual members and the resources available to them but must consider the interpersonal processes by which members interact to accomplish tasks (Marks et al., 2001). Having a team of EDs with a range of expertise is extremely important given that they are increasingly expected to collaborate with and support not only faculty and teaching assistants but also higher-level institutional administrators, technology experts, and curriculum designers (Dawson et al., 2010). Yet academia’s culture of independence and siloed disciplinary specializations often runs counter to teamwork (Lara & Hughey, 2008). Certainly, many characteristic features of academia that may impede teamwork—including desire for autonomy, boundaries drawn along academic disciplines, bias against departmental collaboration, complex and difficult-to-measure institutional or departmental goals, organizational and bureaucratic rules, and dysfunctional reward systems (Burgess, 1994)—continue to exist today (Singh & Kaur, 2020).

To encourage both internal and external departmental teamwork, leaders of educational development centers may develop SMART (i.e., specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time bound) team goals, demonstrate transparency in decision-making and time management, set collective agendas, foster team development, allow for flexibility in workload, encourage multidisciplinary initiatives, and incentivize teamwork toward institutional goals (Burgess, 1994; Lara & Hughey, 2008; Posthuma & Al-Riyami, 2012; Woodfield & Kennie, 2008). Regardless of institutional size, educational development centers may be called upon to ensure curricula and pedagogical practices align with institutional missions and philosophies (Dawson et al., 2010; Sorcinelli, 2002). However, leaders within the field acknowledge possible limitations revolving around insufficient funding and staffing, especially for smaller institutions (Sorcinelli, 2002). Leveraging intentional strategies centered on collaboration across the academy may mitigate these limitations to best promote faculty development and student learning (Sorcinelli, 2002). Furthermore, research highlights that during both times of crisis and typical institutional operation individual and team reflection, peer coaching, and mentoring can be beneficial for EDs in prioritizing tasks within their role (Landy et al., 2022). Implementing the aforementioned strategies may be beneficial to team members given that successful teamwork, team spirit, trust, recognition, and rewards have been associated with improved employee performance (Manzoor et al., 2011). EDs may further benefit by drawing upon one another’s skill sets to meet ever-growing demands for pedagogical and technological innovations (Grupp, 2014).

The Individual Within the Team: Our Guiding Theoretical Framework

While frameworks on the dynamic interrelationships of team features exist, they do not delve into the personal-psychological elements constructing one’s role or the complex processes involved in it, all of which frame the individual’s actions and, consequently, the team’s successful functioning. Therefore, we use the Dynamic Systems Model of Role Identity (DSMRI; Kaplan & Garner, 2017) to examine the individual team members who are nested within the larger team system. Role-identity may be defined as any social position or formal role one occupies that comprises conventional (i.e., shared cultural meanings) and idiosyncratic (i.e., unique or personal meaning) dimensions (Stets, 2010).

The DSMRI captures the following interrelated components that comprise an individual’s role-identity system: ontological beliefs are beliefs, assumptions, and emotions related to what a person holds to be true about the world (e.g., “Faculty require additional support to be successful”); epistemological beliefs reflect the degree of certainty and credibility related to one’s ontological beliefs (e.g., “I know additional support is needed given the increase in consultation requests”); a person’s primary sense of purpose in their role (e.g., “I want to serve as a resource to help them succeed”); goals involve objectives, aims, and desires related to one’s purpose in their role (e.g., “I help address specific challenges unique to underrepresented faculty”); self-perceptions involve personal and social characteristics including interests, values, personality attributes, perceived abilities, and self-efficacy (e.g., “I was not comfortable using certain technological tools”); self-definitions involve self-characteristics and one’s social identities (e.g., “I am a technology specialist”); and perceived action possibilities involve awareness of strategies, tactics, and other behaviors related to one’s role as well as behaviors already being implemented or perceived as possible to implement in one’s role (e.g., “I attend conferences on pedagogy and attend professional development workshops”).

These components are nested within the sphere of knowledge related to one’s role (i.e., domain); relatively stable physical and psychological tendencies (i.e., disposition); one’s immediate social or physical environment, which influences social interactions and behaviors (i.e., social context); and collective customs, values, beliefs, practices, and achievements of specific social groups (i.e., culture). The DSMRI further considers the content (i.e., variation, difference, or change in components of one’s role-identity system), structure (i.e., variation and differences in the degree of harmony and tension within and between components of the system), and process (i.e., the nature by which content and structure of components change) of the role-identity system. For additional information on the DSMRI, readers are encouraged to review Kaplan and Garner (2017) and Garner and Kaplan (2019).

Typically, the components of an individual’s role-identity system are relatively stable. However, the content, structure, and process of these components might experience greater variability when influenced by the complexity associated with disruptions. If there is greater variability in an individual’s role-identity system during times of disruption, the larger network of team members’ role-identity systems may be impacted. Therefore, better understanding the ED role-identity and possible shifts influenced by disruptions is critical within the context of ED team functioning.

Purpose of the Present Study

Educational development centers are critical for disseminating evidence-based pedagogy and improving teaching practices (Schroeder et al., 2010); therefore, understanding the impact that disruptions may have on team functioning within these centers could have wide-reaching implications. Yet there is a paucity of research examining the impacts of major disruptions for this field. In fact, extant research has not explored the intersection between teamwork and EDs themselves from their perspective. Scholarship on teamwork has identified a need for more illustrative and comparative case studies (Mathieu et al., 2017) and calls for “in the wild” examinations of teams situated within organizations (Salas et al., 2008, p. 54). Additionally, Shuffler et al. (2015) argued that team research should focus more on attitudes and cognitions that influence team members’ behavior, use an interdisciplinary lens, and involve holistic investigatory approaches. Investigating individuals themselves, their experiences, and the meanings they construct in their role may generate new insights that help prepare institutions for possible crises.

Addressing these needs, the present, novel study follows a psychological-phenomenological methodology examining pedagogy- and technology-focused EDs before and during a major disruption. A psychological-phenomenological methodology is a systematic, scientific approach that aims to study phenomena by investigating participants’ understanding and meaning-making of their own experiences using psychological constructs (Brock, 2020; Starks & Trinidad, 2007; Vagle, 2014; van Manen, 1990). Our study aims to address the following questions: (1) How might EDs’ engagement with faculty differ during typical institutional operation and during times of disruption? (2) How might disruptions to institutional operation impact EDs’ sense of self, and how might this impact reframe their priorities and engagement with faculty? (3) How might disruptions to institutional operation impact EDs’ perceptions of teamwork, and how might this impact reframe their priorities and engagement with faculty?

Method

Results

Discussion and Future Directions

To help guide this investigation into the impact that crises may have on EDs, we posed three research questions: (1) How might EDs’ engagement with faculty differ during typical institutional operation and during times of disruption? (2) How might disruptions to institutional operation impact EDs’ sense of self, and how might this impact reframe their priorities and engagement with faculty? (3) How might disruptions to institutional operation impact EDs’ perceptions of teamwork, and how might this impact reframe their priorities and engagement with faculty? With these questions in mind, researchers used the DSMRI as a guiding theoretical framework to explore the reflections and perceptions of six EDs with different specialties (i.e., pedagogy or educational technology). EDs were asked to complete a three-part questionnaire to assess perceptions and beliefs before and during the crisis. Together, these instruments mined into the professional role-identity of participants and their perceptions of teamwork.

RQ1: Both before and during the disruption, EDs found purpose in supporting instructors. During typical institutional operation, this took the form of providing skill-based or technical support, such as taking the time to help faculty truly understand educational technologies or providing reflective spaces to encourage their growth as instructors. However, when the crisis occurred and disrupted typical operation, the type of support and process by which it was delivered changed. Within the crisis, EDs were tasked with additional, unexpected responsibilities, and the type of engagement with faculty became constrained by time. Indeed, focus shifted away from long-term educational development to heuristic solutions. Previously, participants believed that instructors “looking for a quick fix/cure-all solution” to a given problem would not receive effective developmental support; given time constraints, however, participants felt their purpose was to train faculty “as quickly and efficiently as possible.” Furthermore, during the disruption, the process of support shifted to providing instructors emotional support, understanding that faculty were “overwhelmed” and “anxious.”

RQ2: Even prior to the disruption, some participants expressed self-perceptions and ontological beliefs that conveyed uncertainties and doubts in their role-related skills, their qualifications to occupy their role, and the importance of their position. When the crisis occurred, multiple participants expressed uncertainty in their own technology skills and, subsequently, their ability to help faculty transition to online learning. These self-perceptions were in conflict with the outward portrayal of “calm and confidence” that participants believed was necessary when working with faculty. Nonetheless, some participants were “driven, determined, and willing” to learn more about educational technology in order to effectively engage with faculty. Furthermore, despite holding doubts, during the disruption multiple EDs adopted ontological beliefs that pedagogy and educational technology specializations were one and the same.

RQ3: Despite the crisis bringing uncertainties in self-perceptions, participants’ beliefs regarding the importance of teamwork were largely consistent both before and during the disruption. In addition to believing that communication, coordination, cooperation, and trust were highly essential across time points, participants also believed that it was important to support one another during the disruption. Some developed goals to draw upon the knowledge of team members from the complementary specialization to fill in gaps in their own knowledge to better support faculty during the transition to remote instruction. Results suggest that while team members may be more easily able to coordinate among one another during typical operation, during the crisis, participants perceived team coordination to originate from leadership.

Implications for Research and Theory

Data highlight the relationship between an ED’s role-related purposes, goals, self-perceptions, and beliefs and how these personal-psychological factors interact with sociocultural factors (e.g., organizational expectations, role-related tasks, and interpersonal dynamics) during times of crisis. This relationship provides further support for Stets’s (2010) conceptualization of role-identity in times of crisis. Given that data collection for this study occurred during what can be considered the early phases of a crisis, further research is needed to better understand how role-identity and team functionality may shift and impact EDs during prolonged crisis situations: During a prolonged period of disruption, do personal-psychological and team-related processes eventually shift back to what was once “typical,” or do they persist as a “new normal?” Future research should seek to understand how leaders of educational development centers respond to disruption and manage EDs who may have burgeoning purpose, goals, self-perceptions, and beliefs: How do the actions of a director or leader of an educational development center during times of crisis influence the role-identity of EDs? Further research is also needed to more explicitly explore the impact that time constraints may have on EDs’ productivity during times of disruption.

The present study also contributes to extant scholarship on teamwork in multiple ways. From an organizational dynamics perspective, it is important to examine a diversity of fields and disciplines, as constructs related to teamwork may function differently depending on context. Prior to this study, research had yet to examine teamwork from the perspective of EDs, and there was a paucity of literature examining teamwork from the broader higher educational context. Furthermore, much of the foundational literature has examined teamwork via Input-Process-Output frameworks (e.g., Marks et al., 2001); has been confined to artificial settings that lose contextual influences (Power, 2018); or has studied complex, dynamic processes of collections of individuals but has not captured the nuances of individuals themselves (e.g., Bell et al., 2018; Mathieu et al., 2017). Using the DSMRI, the present study meaningfully contributes to scholarship on teamwork by highlighting the personal-psychological elements involved in team action during times of typical and disrupted institutional operation. Data generated provides initial evidence that the DSMRI may be a useful framework and tool to examine the role-identity of EDs and how their sense of self shifts or changes during times of crisis. Future research may seek to directly compare the DSMRI to existing frameworks to further validate its effectiveness in studying EDs.